Bottom Line

Global F. Crisis: Lots of tax losses means taxes lost

BOTTOMLINE: Desperate times call for desperate measures. For that matter, desparate times call for desparate measures. 

These times are desparate, desperate times, despite what you read in the financial pages about green shoots and financial legumes.

One thing you would certainly not – yet – have read, but Bottomline alerts you to it now, is of a certain secret Federal Government plan to introduce a marvellous new growth tax, temporarily of course. 

It’s all about taxing losses. No, not tax losses – taxing losses.

You may have heard this term ‘marvellous new growth tax’ before: Malcolm Fraser described the Petrol Price Parity scheme in much the same fashion – and look how well that did.

Paul Keating and then John Howard also described the GST as a ‘marvellous new growth tax’. Look how well that did.

Taxes are described in this positive way not because they promote economic growth but because they grow their take irrespective of whether the economy improves.

But how do you find a marvellous new growth tax in a time of GFC in the wake of the FCUK up in the Northern Hemisphere? (see story panel for acronymic explanation).

How do you find a marvellous new growth tax in a time of falling prices, low interest rates, rising unemployment and massive government spending that needs to be paid off within about 80 years?

You go with the flow. That flow is downhill.

Here at Bottomline, we can reveal the super secret plan by Federal, State and Local Governments, plus a few statutory bodies and at least one airport, to tax losses instead of profits.

A hallmark of the GFC has been the massive losses most corporations have drummed up. Even those making money have massive drops in profit. Hardly enough left to tax.

Now that the secret is out, it seems bleedingly obvious. Tax losses become taxed losses.

The greater the losses, the greater the windfall. So, greater become government revenues to pay off the infrastructure spending and the tax bonuses.

Sure, moves by the Federal Government to tax losses instead of profits may be howled down as misguided and unfair by the Opposition and human rights activists including the Federation Against Retrospective Tax (FARTAX). But this is as much about attitude and building confidence in the marketplace as it is about government revenues.

The psychology is clear: businesses won’t want to make losses because of their tax liabilities.

But the government needs to strike an important balance here, or it won’t work. Tax on losses needs to be much larger than taxes on profits.

In this way, business will see the sense in making profits because losses will mean a much larger tax liability.

This is where the plan may unravel as it is believed more than half the members of Caucus want to stick to established principles of taxing profits heavily and letting companies run rampant with untaxed losses.

Another area of disagreement is the ‘grey area’ of companies that break even and, therefore, are not subject to tax on profits or losses. A retrospective ‘break even’ tax is mooted.

FARTAX has already announced it will oppose any break even tax, except in the case of a company wind-up. FARTAX is pressing for an amendment it calls the break-wind-up clause.

Is this a good idea, or are we all simply at a loss? ♦


We are still not out of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC, as it is referred to, incessantly) yet. Things are bad, but perhaps not as bad as the International Monetary Fund thinks.

They tried unsuccessfully to re-brand the GFC as the Great Recession, but most media wouldn’t buy it. Recession doesn’t sound scary enough, compared with Depression. After all, you don’t hear of anyone going on anti-recessants.

So it doesn’t matter what size it is, Recession doesn’t sound Great, ever. Not Great-bad and certainly not Great-good.

Depression is what you have to go with, in times like these.  From that point on, it’s just a matter of scale.

Perhaps they should have gone for the Not-So-Great Depression instead – the NSGD – but probably catchier would have been the Second Greatest Depression, SGD. A canned meat manufacturer apparently still has dibs on the Sub-Prime American Meltdown.

It’s all too late to upgrade the branding, now that the GFC has won its place in prime time history – which means it will be forgotten in about three months. 

Be aware, though, that originally the IMF was working on its crisis branding when the situation was known in banking circles as the Known Financial Crisis. But KFC had already been taken by some old US military guy.

Similarly, in Britain, the Financial Crisis United Kingdom showed promise, but amazingly some crazed fashion label beat the IMF and the World Bank to the IP. And they just couldn’t wear it.

Or maybe the penny dropped.  Pigs can’t fly, even if they happen to hold money. ♦

e-mail WARNING:

If you receive an email from the Department of Health telling you not to eat tinned pork because of swine flu ... ignore it ...

It’s just spam. ♦


Global Fruit Crisis

IF MONEY was fruit, would we have the same problems with the GFC? Just say we were in the grip of the Global Fruit Crisis instead of the Global Financial Crisis.

How did the GFC get to be so critical? A quick overview:

It all started when US President Bill Clingdon decided to legislate that people who had traditionally not shown an interest in fruit, or did not have the resources to service a regular fruit bill, should have better access to fruit.

US Government Legislation ensured fruit markets had to set aside boxes of fruit specifically for those disadvantaged people – even though they may not be able to pay for it, all the time.

Meanwhile, the Fruity Reserve, chaired by Alan Greenspurt, was delighted with the amount of fruit it was able to get out into the marketplace, by keeping interest rates lower for longer. Things were going well.

Fruity Banks, meanwhile, were busily trying to get all that new fruit, being steadily piled up at the back door, out there to buyers.

To do so, they were finding they had to smarten up the packaging and offer some extra bananas or tangerines to ensure that fruit went out before it went off.

Even though some of the fruit was on the verge of going off before it left the bank, which they called Sub Prime Fruit, a packaging spruce up with luscious fruit pictures on the boxes reassured the market. Buyers that President Clingdon had legislated in favour of got first dibs at these very appealing cut-price fruit boxes – and all was very well indeed.

Things began to move even faster. US fruit markets and traders thought they could modernise the way the fruit industry works by creating some new products and ‘instruments’ known in the trade as Fruity Instrument Tailoring (FIT).

This accelerated the whole process, fruit markets earned big bonuses on the turnover of their fruit and soon all the major fruit financiers were having FITs.

Seeing these events, fruit financiers and investors all around the world began to buy into this burgeoning market as Walnut Street developed new Fruity Annuity Funds (FAFs) and Fruity Activity Reserve Trusts (acronym withheld – Editor) with high rates of growth.

None of this seemed to trouble the IMF (International Melon Fund), or the Fruity Reserve, which bathed in the glory of unprecedented fruit growth,  because everybody seemed happy.

These august institutions felt we had reached a new fruit markets paradigm where everybody who wanted fruit could get it, farmers could grow fruit on demand, everybody who wanted to sell more fruit could and none of this modern fruit ever seemed to go off.

This was a revelation. For hundreds of years, fruit had traded more or less in the same fashion on Walnut Street. You asked for a ripe banana, you got a ripe banana. You asked for a ripe orange, you got a ripe orange. You asked for a raw banana, you also got what you asked for. Forget pineapples.

However, some of the traders got some advice on the possibilities of GM (greed modified) fruit – guaranteed to be bigger, more colourful and even ‘straighter’, in the case of bananas – and realised these would appeal to even more unsophisticated investors.

They started a whole marketing and publicity campaign based around GM fruit that began to fire the public’s imagination. These fruits were not, of course, modified in any particular way other than to go through another stage of personal handling from the markets. In the case of bananas, they were tugged a few times before going in the box, to help straighten them out.

The bewildered public loved the concept of straighter bananas, it seemed, and soon fruit market providers all over the world were tugging themselves. (It would later be alleged by psychologists studying the GFC that the entire problem was driven by male testosterone that led to greedy competitive decisions among the men on Walnut Street, who could see nothing at all out of the ordinary in tugging bananas).

But then somebody in the fruit media pointed out that things were turning rotten. Delays in getting the fruit stockpile to market meant a rise in pre-packaged GM fruit going bad almost immediately it was unwrapped.

Some consumers saw through the pre-packaged banana tugging scam. They became tired of the bent untruths – and the fruit, since it began to smell and taste bad – and they sent their now rotten boxes of sub-prime fruit back to the banks.

This impacted other fruit markets, as people began to fear that other fruit had also been GM-ed which, of course, most had.

Unfortunately, a few of the major fruit trading houses, some of them generations old like Leafman Brothers, had put too many of their resources into these new fruits and FITs, never imagining they would turn bad, leaving an abundance of worthless rotting fruit.

Soon, fruit traders everywhere were hit by bad fruit and a surplus of all the most unpopular fruit.

A couple of the big international trading houses went bust before the government stepped in and started giving them good fruit from the government’s own supply, a vast majority of it actually grown in China.

So, here we are today and the Global Fruit Crisis is far from over.

In Australia, where most of our fruit goes to China before it is put into tins and sent to the US, our Government has wisely guaranteed the fruit supply for our banks, who may or may not sell it on at a fair profit to Australian business, depending on their appetite for risk.

If only the GFC was the Global Fruit Crisis. At least then our currency would be edible and we could make jam instead of being in a jam.

The prime lesson from both GFCs is: if you’ve got a bunch of yellow things that look like bananas, feel like bananas and are bent like bananas, no amount of GM science, re-packaging or delicate manipulation by the markets will set them straight.

It’s all still just bananas.

 - Mike Sullivan, 2012. 


Say what you mean when it’s mean, what you say

Sometimes, what sporting people intend to say is not what they mean and what it means is no mean feat. Or something like that … just ask these American Football linguistic legends.

Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model:
“I wan’ all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan’ all the kids to copulate me.”

New Orleans Saint running back George Rogers when asked about the upcoming season:
“I want to rush for 1,000 or 1,500 yards, whichever comes first.”

And, upon hearing Joe Jacobi of the ’Skins say, “I’d run over my own mother to win the Super Bowl,” Matt Millen of the Raiders said,
“To win, I’d run over Joe’s Mom, too.”

Torrin Polk, University of Houston receiver, on his coach, John Jenkins: “He treats us like men.
He lets us wear earrings.”

Football commentator and former player Joe Theismann, 1996: “Nobody in football should be called a genius. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.”

Senior basketball player at the University of Pittsburgh: “I’m going to graduate on time, no matter how long it takes.”

Bill Peterson, a Florida State football coach: “You guys line up alphabetically by height.”
And, “You guys pair up in groups of three, and then line up in a circle.”

Boxing promoter Dan Duva on Mike Tyson going to prison: “Why would anyone expect him to come out smarter? He went to prison for three years, not Princeton.”

Stu Grimson, Chicago Blackhawks left wing, explaining why he keeps a colour photograph of himself above is locker: “That’s so when I forget how to spell my name, I can still find my clothes.”
Lou Duva, veteran boxing trainer, on the Spartan training regime of heavyweight Andrew Golota: “He’s a guy who gets up at six o’clock in the morning, regardless of what time it is.”

Chuck Nevitt, North Carolina State basketball player, explaining to coach Jim Valvano why he appeared nervous at practice: “My sister’s expecting a baby, and I don’t know if I’m going to be an uncle or an aunt.”

Frank Layden, Utah Jazz president, on a former player: “I told him, ‘Son, what is it with you? Is it ignorance or apathy?’ He said, ‘Coach, I don’t know and I don’t care.’”

Shelby Metcalf, basketball coach at Texas A&M, recounting what he told a player who received four Fs and one D: “Son, looks to me like you’re spending too much time on one subject.”

Amarillo High School and Oiler coach Bum Phillips when asked by Bob Costas why he takes his wife on all the road trips, Phillips responded: “Because she is too damn ugly to kiss good-bye.”

All president accounted for

Any wonder such confusion reigns, when their very President – well, now former President – of the United States can come up with these pearlers. (George W. Bush, we miss you already.)

“The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.”

“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”

“One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is to be prepared.”

“We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.”

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

“The future will be better tomorrow.”

“We’re going to have the best educated American people in the world.”

“I stand by all the misstatements that I’ve made.”

“We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe.”

“Public speaking is very easy.”

“A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.”

“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”

“Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.”

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”

And, perhaps, most prophetic of all:

“It's time for the human race to enter the solar system.”

– George.W. Bush



Let’s get to the bottom of global warming ...

This is no laughing matter. If you think biological – especially mammalian – emissions are something to snicker about, think again.

These little things are slowly killing our planet. Apparently.

Learned men, learned women, scientists, climactologists (more about them later), communication specialists, environmental lawyers and concerned politicians all around the world are suddenly sitting up and taking it (specifically – and please excuse the common impolite description –  farts) very seriously. And so should you, if you know what’s good for us.

Thankfully, someone’s on the job and the Australian Government has, in great foresight, set aside $26.8million to sort this looming disaster out.

Livestock flatulence is Australia’s third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, a huge contributor to global warming. According to the latest climate modelling, the (largely) silent tragedy these beasts are steadily wreaking actually has, surprisingly to the man in the street, been found to have little to do with the emissions’ temperature.

That was always just an urban myth and a pretty good joke. There are literally reams of analysis on the subject now. Google livestock emissions, and brace yourself.

The $26.8million allocated by the Federal Government is being spent very carefully on 18 specialised research projects over four years aimed at solving the problem. This is outlined by a new breed of climatologist specialising in the ‘critical turning point’ of climate change – increasingly known as the climactologist.

Here are just some of the topics being covered at a little over $1million apiece as part of the research package:

• Breeding low methane emitting sheep and elucidating the underlying biology.

• Methanotrophs in natural ecosystems and their role in ruminant methane mitigation.

• Microbial ecology of hydrogenotrophic rumen microorganisms in response to methane inhibition.

• Use of peptide-phage display libraries to discover peptides that are bioactive against rumen methanogens.

Sounds like we need to act fast.


According to the Animal Liberation organisation’s website, the cattle industry produces greenhouse gases in two ways:

“In South America, vast stretches of Amazon forest have been cleared and burned to make way for cattle ranches. This releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Land is still being cleared in Australia, especially in Queensland, for cattle grazing.

“Methane is another greenhouse gas. It currently contributes about 18 percent to global warming, but may become more important in future because it traps 25 times more heat than the CO2 molecule. Cattle produce methane in their excrement and flatulence, both of which they emit in large quantities. They contribute 60 of the 500 million tons of methane released into the atmosphere per year.”

Crikey! And then, a word of advice:

“A vegetarian diet avoids cruelty and reduces environmental problems.”

Clearly, we must act to set livestock free immediately and then kill the lot of them, to save the planet.

There won’t be too many qualms about culling flatulent pigs, but there may be some resistance to lambs, if not sheep. Horse racing, well, it’s better on the Wii anyway, where you can ride yourself. Pretty much everyone under 20 acknowledges that already.

Several extremely well intentioned special interest groups are concerned that this livestock emissions research does not go far enough and – more to the point – will have to be done very fast, before all the money is consumed by the global financial crisis.

As one top secret report by an eminent team of climactologists – known as Climactologi Occluding Wind Producing Animal Tragedy (COWPAT) – points out, no matter how much work is done to stem the tide of methane emissions from domesticated livestock, it is only the tip of the rapidly melting iceberg.

The real problems are out there roaming unchecked and, so far, unmeasured.


To be considered, because of its sheer numbers in Australia, must be the kangaroo – the perfect high mobility methane manufacturing machine.

Someone must get some quantitative magniloquence data on kangaroos right away. Then, hard decisions are going to be necessary.

The current estimated population of 58.6 million means there are more than twice as many kangaroos in Australia as there are cattle, according to the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia website. This has all the makings of a natural disaster, given what we now know about climate change. The roos, even those few loose in the top paddock, are going to have to go. Sad.

It gets worse – evidence is now emerging that flatulent emissions from eucalyptus-feeding species are even more toxic than at first thought. Koalas – with their pungent Goanna Oil smelling emissions – have got to go too, sadly.

The emu, blue-tongue lizard, lorikeet, platypus, ring-tail possum and wombats are all under close scrutiny. Scientific gaseity measuring systems are being developed so we can get a true picture of what a looming disaster these magniloquent Australian species are creating for our environment.

Perhaps the only hope for a different outcome are new animal methane capture and sequestration technologies being developed that may yet become a source of hydrogen for the new generation of eco-friendly cars. But the clock is ticking. Time and money are running out for our planet.

This is the Flatulence Earth theory.


Raising the bar stool on tax

There is a clever parable doing the rounds at the moment called Bar Stool Economics, widely attributed over the internet to an economics professor at the University of Georgia, David R. Kamerschen. As is so often the case with such internet fodder, he categorically denies the piece – and has set up a web page to do so – as do several other economists who have had it mis-attributed to them. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering this bar stool argument – although it may turn you to drink ...

Suppose that every day, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all 10 comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The 10th (the richest) pays $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The 10 men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner threw them a curve:

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the 10 now cost just $80.”

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But how could the other six men divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The 10th now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the 10th man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got 10 times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the 10th and beat him up.

The next night the 10th man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. People who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax cut. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore – or go drink overseas where it’s friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. 

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Gest the GST?

The Bar Stool piece raises an old argument about GST that once circulated in economic circles. It goes something like this…

GST is 10 percent added to the sale price on goods and services. On a $100 item, that is $10. Say that $100 item was an object sold in a retail store. Assuming profit level is 25 percent on the cost price, equal to 20 percent on the sale price, a reasonable average, then profit on that item is $20.

So, the seller rents premises, employs people, pays taxes and superannuation, services business loans and pays utilities to get that item to market and make $20 profit, or 25 percent profit. The Federal Government collects $10. Most of the administration of receiving this money is already borne by the retailer, whose financial controllers manage the GST process and even pay the cost of transferring those funds to the government as a cost of doing business.

So the government’s $10 is a real 10 percent profit on the total activity of the retailer, or a 12.5 percent profit on the cost of bringing that item to market. It also equals half the profit that the retailer makes, for no input.

So, GST is mathematically a 50 percent immediate tax on the retailer’s profit in this average case. Easy.

That’s elementary and really does take the cake, Dr  Hewson …



Court hearings take on a whole new meaning when the defence gets defensive and the prosecution prosecutes elocution. These classics are attributed to an American book called Disorder in the Courts: Great Fractured Moments in Courtroom History by Charles M. Sevilla. If you can’t find the book, you might take a short cut by picking up a DVD of the 1936 Three Stooges comedy classic, Disorder in the Court.

Attorney: Are you sexually active?
Witness: No, I just lie there.

Attorney:What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
Witness: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Attorney: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: And in what ways does it  affect your memory?
Witness: I forget.
Attorney:You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?

Attorney: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
Witness: He said, “Where am I, Cathy?”
Attorney: And why did that upset you?
Witness:My name is  Susan!

Attorney: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
Witness: We both do.
Attorney: Voodoo?
Witness: We do.
Attorney: You do?
Witness: Yes, voodoo.

Attorney: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
Witness: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

Attorney: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
Witness: Uh, he’s 20.

Attorney: Were you present when your picture was taken?
Witness: Are you serious?

Attorney: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: And what were you doing at  that time?
Witness: Uh.... I was gettin laid!

Attorney: She had three children, right?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: How many were boys?
Witness: None.
Attorney: Were there any girls?
Witness: Are you serious? Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?

Attorney: How was your first marriage terminated?
Witness: By death.
Attorney: And by whose death was it terminated?
Witness: Now whose death do you suppose terminated it?

Attorney: Can you describe the individual?
Witness: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Attorney: Was this a male or a female?
Witness: Guess.

Attorney: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
Witness: No, this is how I dress when I go to  work.

Attorney: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
Witness: All my autopsies are performed on dead people. Would you like to rephrase that question?

Attorney: All your responses must be oral, okay? What school did you go to?
Witness: Oral.

Attorney: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
Witness: The autopsy started around 8:30pm.
Attorney: And Mr Denton was dead at the time?
Witness: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him.

Attorney: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
Witness: Huh... are you qualified to ask that question?

Attorney: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Witness: No.
Attorney: Did you check for blood pressure?
Witness: No.
Attorney: Did you check for breathing?
Witness: No.
Attorney: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Witness: No.
Attorney: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Attorney: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
Witness: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practising law.



Smart arts answers

Bottom line > > >

Smart arts answers

It is said that it is an intellectual art form to complete the Indian Administrative Services entry exam. But because the list of candidates is so vast, the exam produces some of the wittiest examples of lateral thinking and smart artistry. Here are some examples:

Q.How can you drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?
A. Concrete floors are very hard to crack!

Q.If it took eight men 10 hours to build a wall, how long would it take four men to build it?
A. No time at all, it is already built.

Q.If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four apples and three oranges in the other hand, what would you have?
A. Very large hands.

Q. How can you lift an elephant with one hand?
A. It is not a problem, since you will never find an elephant with one hand.

Q. How can a man go eight days without sleep?
A. No Probs. He sleeps at night.

Q. If you throw a red stone into the blue sea what it will become?
A. It will wet or sink, as simple as that.

Q. What looks like half apple?
A : The other half.

Q. What can you never eat for breakfast?
A : Dinner.

Q. What happened when the wheel was invented?
A : It caused a revolution.

Q. Bay of Bengal is in which state?
A : Liquid.

And this classic exchange, after which the candidate was given a prime job offer in the Public Service:

Interviewer: “I shall either ask you 10 easy questions or one really difficult question. Think well before you make up your mind!”
The man thought for a while and said, “My choice is one really difficult question.”
Interviewer: “Well, good luck to you, you have made your own choice! Now tell me this. What comes first, day or night?”
The fellow was jolted into reality, as his career future depended on the correctness of his answer.
But he thought for a while and said, “It's the day sir!”
“How?” the interviewer asked.
“Sorry sir, you promised me that you will not ask me a second difficult question!”
He was selected for the role.


Contact Us


PO Box 2144